Giving ‘progressive’ the ‘liberal’ treatment
Yesterday we talked about a new poll showing how the “progressive” political label has overtaken “conservative” in popularity among U.S. voters.
It stands to reason, then, that conservatives, after having tarnished “liberal,” are going to have to take on the newer, more popular, label for the left. As Kevin Drum noted, NRO’s Yuval Levin got the ball rolling.
Progressivism, after all, has a very mixed history in American politics, which takes in not only efforts to reform labor laws, bust trusts, and create national parks but also some serious doses of racism, social Darwinism, eugenics, and a very strange mix of authoritarianism and out of control populism.
The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat is also getting in on the fun.
I take Matt’s point that “Progressive” is basically just a useful umbrella term for a left-of-center coalition. On the other hand, I’m not so sure that it’s a coincidence that the revival of progressivism as a political label has coincided with a more strident secularism/atheism, a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to “science” (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.), and a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left.
Yes, Ross really did put “science” in quotation marks.
I suppose the left should consider all of this a warning shot — “progressive” is poised to get a far-right work-over.
On the bright side, by denouncing progress they ought to sound like luddites more than anything else.
Yes, Ross really did put “science” in quotation marks.
LOL! Thanks for the best laugh I’ll have all day. “Ross” is an idiot.
I suppose the left should consider all of this a warning shot — “progressive” is poised to get a far-right work-over.
Right.
But like many of us who argued for dropping the poisoned L-word. (oh… what… like 7 years ago or so) Russ and Co. can’t slime the new label fast enough to effect the next election cycle.
The idea is to keep shifting the label on the labelers.
A rolling lefty gathers no slime.
You’ve got to move the target on these wingnuts…
Off hand…. A new rule of thumb:
A mere handful of words can effect a Presidential election.
It’s the language stupid!
What we need to learn: (1) dont wait for them to define “progressive” – we need to get out there and do it ourselves; (2) fight back this time, unlike with liberal when we arrogantly believed that the Right Wing Noise Machine wouldn’t really be able to change how a word is looked at; (3) the best defense is a good offense – get “progressive” locked in and then immediately start noting – not only every time they trash progressive, but even before that – that if you aren’t progressive, you must be regressive. “and boy oh boy those conservatives have indeed acted regressive lately [citing examples X, Y and Z]”
I should have known being reality based is more a slur directed at the left than the right. Neocons are maniacs that now even their parents disown. Rather than using this golden oppotunity to pursue a liberal agenda which the democratic party doesnt believe in anymore(FDR would piss on it), it will assiduously pursue policies that will attempt to insure their position. The democratic party is just another corporation. Prove me wrong.
Nautilator has it exactly right. This campaign started way too late to do them any good. No one they could possibly persuade is paying any attention anymore, and it only underscores how silly the word conservative has started to sound, especially to a lot of people who once considered themselves conservatives.
Normally, I’m not one for fighting from a position of disadvantage, but this is why I said yesterday that Clinton should have stood her ground on the question. It would have shown courage and conviction — attributes she’s often criticized for lacking. More than that, by not defending the liberal label, it remains tainted — all the right has to do is say the new label is nothing more than liberalism rebranded and the new label is trashed.
Liberalism has it’s roots in liberty — and a tradition of legitimate accomplishments that have been stripped thanks to decades of unanswered attacks from the right. Most people share at least some liberal values though they may not know it — defending liberalism might turn the tables and convince some of them that the right is actually attacking them.
From any historical definition of progressive, I doubt few calling themselves that today are anything but liberals.
I predict the term “Conservative” will, in the not too distant future, be as tarnished as the term “Liberal” has become to many people bombarded by Conservative propaganda over the last thirty years. “Progressive” broadens the label that liberals can agree with. The original Progressives starting with Teddy Roosevelt, along with Robert LaFollette, Hiram Johnson Senator Norris, and others, were mostly reform minded Republicans in the first decades of the 20th Century. At that time the Democratic party was dominated by racist Southern politicians. Progressive is a great term because it is inclusive and can even claim sensible Republicans who have some integrity (I think there are a few). The modern Republican Party has become as extreme as the late 19th and early 20th Century Democrats which helps explain why the South is so avidly Republican. Because of Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights initiatives, Southerns simply switched parties and kept their same old racist and reactionary conservative mind set. When Bush finally leaves office the damage to society and the carnage he has left will set the concept of “Conservative” back a long time.
The progressive party of the 1920s was the nom deplume of the communist party. A look at the progressive agenda will reveal a move toward socialisim and big government control. Indeed it may be the perfect alternative for the left to the liberal label.
A Bad Idea in Search of an Attractive Name
“It stands to reason, then, that conservatives, after having tarnished “liberal,” are going to have to take on the newer, more popular, label for the left.”
Ummm, no. Do not blame Conservatives for what the so-called Liberals have done to themselves.
A rose is a rose is a rose …
And a Progressive is a Liberal is a Socialist is a Communist.
This is the third iteration of the Progressive theme and meme in the last century. The original manifestation of Progressive thought had a genuine concern for social welfare in a more primitive economic environment. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, was a leading political embodiment of the Progressive movement in the early Twentieth Century. Much progress was made in social justice during this period.
The Great Depression was a time of stress and strife, and serious consideration was given to radical political solutions for the problems, not only in the USA, but world-wide. In America, fascism attracted adherents (Charles Lindbergh, notably) and Socialism/Communism had a wide following among the usual suspects; the media, academics, and politicians. Communists/Socialists tried to hijack the government in America as they had done in Russia a few years before. Mindful of the mass murder and destruction that marked the early years of the Soviet Union, the American people firmly rejected Socialism as a model for their polity.
Henry Wallace was FDR’s Vice-President during FDR’s third term. Wallace actively promoted Communism as Vice-President. Wallace’s policies were controversial and unpopular, and Wallace was taken off the ticket for the 1944 elections to be replaced by Harry Truman. Roosevelt died scant weeks after Roosevelt/Truman were inaugurated for Roosevelt’s fourth term; we missed having an active Communist sympathizer for President by that small margin.
Wallace ran for President in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket (the second iteration of Progressivism in the USA), and was soundly defeated and repudiated, taking no Electoral College votes, and showing modest strength only in (where else?) New York and California.
“American radicals and socialists began calling themselves `liberals’.”
– F.A. Hayek, 1960.
Having failed to impose their Collectivist philosophy on the American people as Communists, Socialists, or Progressives, the Collectivists adopted a new name: Liberals. As practiced by the Collectivists, the Liberalism of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was extremely illiberal.
Liberal values originated in Europe during the Enlightenment, and grew to fruition in the founding of the United States of America; the finest statement of liberal values is contained in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America, the first ten Amendments.
So why do Collectivists, until recently known as “Liberals”, campaign so hard against liberal ideas like free speech (First Amendment, talk radio) and self-defense (Second Amendment, right to keep and bear arms)? Because you can’t impose Collectivist policies on people who are free to say what they want and who can defend themselves and their values. The Collectivists want to impose social controls as Lenin did in the early Soviet Union, and as the Socialist bureaucrats are doing now in the EUSSR.
Communist, Socialist, and Liberal have become terms of disapprobation in the United States over a period of decades, and the Collectivists are desperate for a new term without negative connotations. The best they can come up with is a revival, for the third time, of the tired old “Progressive” label.
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
– Juliet, in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare, 1594
And by whatever name they call themselves, Collectivists are rotten and depraved enough to gag a maggot. Collectivists actively seek the destruction of the individual and individual values in favor of a universal set of values that subsume the individual in rules and bureaucracy, as envisioned in the concept of the “New Soviet Man”.
The corruption and inefficiency of Socialist efforts everywhere should have destroyed Socialism as a viable political philosophy, but it has not. Communism/Socialism/”Liberalism”/ Progressivism must be confronted anew in each generation if human freedom is to prevail.
Or maybe the Collectivists will run out of names. Perhaps they could call themselves “Know Nothings”, a name with historical validity in the United States, and which aptly describes their philosphy.
Well done, lago…..Coming out of their own closets is their greatest fear. The left’s never-ending identity crisis in America is due to the fact that their true beliefs can never be expressed bluntly or sincerely to the public and it’s always been for obvious reasons.
They are philosophically aligned with Marxists and there’s no way to disguise it in the eyes of any fair-minded person’s accounting of their motives. It’s a built-in hypocrisy they’ve learned to accept in themselves.
They are ideological cowards who must do everything possible to confuse and deceive the public whenever they are cornered like this. They’ve literally been shamed out of the word “liberal”. Their inability to proudly defend their own social identity in the public mind does not go unnoticed anymore.
Wether it be their genuine disgust for all things capitalism, their complete rejection of traditionally American moral norms, their blanket secularism, their seditious and subversive loathing of our military, ect, these people live to defy everything this country has ever taken any pride in.
“Liberal/ Social-Democrat/ Collectivist/Secular humanists/ Progressive”, blah blah blah…..They are self-loathing communists in deep, deep denial…..Rank narcissists….The first step towards self-respect is accepting who you are. Always ‘questioning’ everything and everyone, but these shameless clowns are never in the mood for self-introspection.
Well said Iago. And the Left may want to re-look at that poll, it asked what people thought of candidates who are politically progessive which is not necessarily the same thing as what do you think of Progressives. That word is just coming into the political vernacular and when people realize that Progressive just means ULTRA-liberal, then they will quickly reject that label. Personally, I couldn’t be happier that the Libs are trying to recast themselves as more liberal, anti-military and anti-America.
Trust the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again in the next election. They will likely keep the Senate, but America has more sense than to elect as president a woman who’s greatest asset is 8 years as the first lady.
“Progressive” = noose.
More kool-aid, anyone?
Iago = another Newt-esque faux “professor” propounding conservative dogma & playing fast & loose with facts–e.g., “a more primitive economic environment.” Can hardly get MORE “primitive” than what we have now under Bush–the triumph of ideology over reality. Quaff some more of that konservatiff koolaid, boyz! We need you to continue pontificating & setting this great nation straight. We liberal commies collapse before the bright light of your truth.
Speaking of Kool-Aid, I just re-read your post #7, beep.
It does nothing to enhance your position. You site Hillary’s reluctance to defend herself against conservative attacks. You site liberals, as a whole, who have allowed themselves “for decades” to be defined by their political rivals without a serious rebuttal. You blame liberals for not showing the courage of their alleged convictions to defend the label of ‘liberal’.
“all the right has to do is say the new label is nothing more than liberalism rebranded and the new label is trashed.”
Right. Why do you suppose that is?
“Iago = another Newt-esque faux “professor” propounding conservative dogma & playing fast & loose with facts”
Then counter him with your ‘facts’.
“The idea is to keep shifting the label on the labelers.
A rolling lefty gathers no slime.
You’ve got to move the target on these wingnuts…
Exactly.The point here is not to directly confront your opponent honestly and defend your point of view. Ambiguity and vagueness are your friends. Most people still mistake this kind of evasiveness for cowardice, but that’s also just a right-wing talking point. Don’t get distracted.
“Off hand…. A new rule of thumb:
A mere handful of words can effect a Presidential election.
It’s the language stupid!”
This guy is oblivious. What manipulative, deceitful nonsense.
[…] these shameless clowns are never in the mood for self-introspection. — blue, @11
Self-introspection????
Blue, with a spot of remedial English, you might be able to handle the language with a semblance of competence. Possibly, even in time to pass an exam or two, when in becomes the official language of the country. You really, really, *should not* model yourself on your grey-matter-disabled president.
I’ll forgive you, this time, your “You site Hillary’s reluctance[…]” @16…. But promise to check: “site”, “cite” and “sight”, as soon as you’re in a vicinity of a good dictionary.
I take it you have no problem with Blue’s ideas, you have only quibbles with his spelling and grammar. That sort of puts your priorities in perspective.
Speaking of, you could stand a little proof-reading yourself.
A mere handful of words can effect a Presidential election.
It’s the language stupid!”
This guy is oblivious. What manipulative, deceitful nonsense.
Comment by blue — 7/29/2007 @ 1:58 am
So complains the apparent conservative, whose movement has been guided to victory by polling semanticist Frank Luntz for two decades?
Methinks thou dost protest too much. My guess is your only real issue is that the left (finally) caught on to the right-wing word play and is going to join the battle.
I’ll accept your forgiveness. Now, quit stalling.
“So complains the apparent conservative, whose movement has been guided to victory by polling semanticist Frank Luntz for two decades?
That’s news to me. I always thought it was KKKKarl Rove who’s been behind all this brain-washing from the start. Frank Luntz is 45 years old. If he’s been pulling off this scam since he was 25, as you claim, the man is an absolute genius.
The left would slit their own mother’s throats for a pair of men like that.
My bad grammar aside, would you care to rebut any point that lago or I have made? Isn’t it you liberals, oh excuse me, ‘progressives’, who love to pride yourselves on your ability to debate? After all, you are the philosophical kin to our Founding Fathers. Us? We’re just “talking points”.
My guess is your only real issue is that the left (finally) caught on to the right-wing word play and is going to join the battle.
If conservatives are just word-gaming the public, how is it possible that they get away with it and you can’t?
Accept it. You people are a fraud.
Iago, blue and other confused ilk.
You speak of fiscal liberals. extreme ones.
Belief in protection of citizens from economic hardship is better seen as a continuum rather than a binary system No country is purely capitalistic nor communist (thanks to black markets). To treat all liberals as extremists undermines your arguments and would have people consider you mere demagogues,
Social liberals defend 9 of our constitutional rights. Their tendency to nitpick the 2nd baffles me, but far less so than social conservatives that seem to prefer it to the exclusion of all others.
Might I suggest indulging in more liberal media options and find one you like so you might temper the monolithic one-sided fare you’re used to? I listen to Beck, and I used to enjoy Michael Graham. It is difficult to be informed listening to a single side. If liberal views were so very weak, they wouldn’t enjoy support by majorities in the “EUSSR”. The quips and names the right wing entertainers that pass for political minds have for liberals/progressives/what-have-you are fun, but don’t mistake them for axioms.
Allow me to recommend Rachel Maddow. She’s funny, smart, and explains liberal arguments better than any other talk show I’ve heard. I think there are podcasts so you need not live in New York or California as I know these are burned in your mind as cultural wastelands. (It’s so odd so many people choose to live there when they are such horrible cesspools of collectivists. What is the resolution of this mystery, one wonders.)
Give me an example of a living, breathing fiscal liberal. One who everyone on your side agrees is a worthy spokesperson for your party.
“To treat all liberals as extremists undermines your arguments and would have people consider you mere demagogues…”
Does the theory hold true of those on the left who demean all conservatives? Name someone you’d consider ‘extreme’ on the left.
It is difficult to be informed listening to a single side. If liberal views were so very weak, they wouldn’t enjoy support by majorities in the “The quips and names the right wing entertainers that pass for political minds have for liberals/progressives/what-have-you are fun, but don’t mistake them for axioms.
”.
You should understand that liberalism and the position it takes on any given issue is hardly ever a surprise to us or anyone else. We know what drives you better than yourselves. If it requires taxation, if it takes a morally-relative approach, if it’s degenerate, if it demoralizes the country’s morale in a fight, ect, you guys are all over it. What does Rachel Maddow have to offer?….Funny?…..That frustrated, crew-cut sister? This woman knows NOTHING about this world.
Hell, what about Garofolo?….Jail-house tats from head to toe. This woman looks like a something you’d find standing in front of a methadone clinic. You gotta be outta your mind, man.
No one has ever doubted that your politics are far more palatable and persuasive every else except in the United States.
The quips and names the right wing entertainers that pass for political minds have for liberals/progressives/what-have-you are fun, but don’t mistake them for axioms.
You people fancy yourselves so fascinating and esoteric as to defy description. Your hesitation to speak forthright and definitively on any given issue has always been your undoing. You are not above human nature’s ability to comprehend. Wether you are conscious of it or not, your philosophical paralysis has a very clear, definable explanation. There’s nothing coincidental about you.
Social liberals defend 9 of our constitutional rights. Their tendency to nitpick the 2nd baffles me, but far less so than social conservatives that seem to prefer it to the exclusion of all others
Seems to me that social-liberals are pretty big opponents of the free excercise of religion clause.
It’s so laughable. Liberals think that the problem is their LABEL, when people are rejecting their POLICY. It doesn’t matter if you put a silk purse on a pig, the people are smarter than you give them credit for; we don’t need your nanny state.
Jacobs –
Liberals? LIBERALS??? Didn’t you read the original blog? Liberals is so last week. The new term is “Progressive”. The polls told Hillary it was true, so it surely must be true.
“Protection of citizens from economic hardship”? Like LBJ and his “Great Society” programs? LBJ’s welfare programs alone cost six trillion dollars over twenty-five years, and the most important result was the near total destruction of black families. Of course, six trillion dollars just happens to be close to the national debt, as well, but that may just be a coincidence.
And don’t you think Carter’s double digit inflation and double digit interest rates hurt the citizenry?
Now you have to give Clinton some credit for his two major triumphs, ending LBJ’s welfare program and passing free trade legislation, even if these were both Republican-originated programs. But then Clinton had the advantage of a rising economy due to Reagan’s tax cuts and economic reforms, and he had the advantage of huge cuts in military spending due to the Reagan-induced collapse of the Soviet Union, and Clinton still managed to louse up the economy by letting the dot.com Bubba Bubble get out completely out of hand. In Clinton’s last year the NASDAQ fell by 50%, the DOW started south, and the budget surplus was falling like a rock. Of course, the budget surplus was a result of the Bubba Bubble, and what always happens to economic bubbles? They pop, of course, what else? Clinton was dumb as a turnip to allow the dot,com bubble to develop in the first place.
“Social liberals (you mean Progressives, of course) defend 9 of our constitutional rights.”
Umm, no. Progressives are engaged in an ongoing assault on the right to keep and bear arms, religious (Christian) freedom, and freedom of speech (talk radio only, not CNN, NBC, CBS. ABC, NYT, or WaPo). Perhaps worse, the Progressives are trying to extend our citizens’ rights (habeas corpus, privacy) to Jihadist terrorists who are trying to kill us. That is so dumb, Clinton could not have thought it up, it must have been Carter.
It’s so laughable. Liberals think that the problem is their LABEL, when people are rejecting their POLICY.
That’s exactly it. This proves how shallow and deceptive these people really are. They think everything, including their own perception in the public mind, is something that can be tweaked or erased all together by simply changing a word here or there. It’s offensive and it’s condescending to any self-respecting person. They are intellectually dishonest and lazy.
They entertain some of the most insane fringe political elements in the history of this country. These lunatics need steady, constant, furious agitation just to stay motivated. The theatrics they’ve been pulling-off lately, including this MOVEON “Out of Iraq” all-nighter on the Senate floor, complete with cots, has made them the laughing stock of the country.
Congressional approval numbers are at historic all-time lows….14%!!….If Bush is in the gutter, where are they?
Now, they’re split. Half of them want to back-off and re-evaluate, the other half demands immediate, full-throttle impeachment hearings. The party is a complete mess. We’re still a year away and these clowns will not have enough red meat to toss these freaks long enough to keep them busy for that long.
Democrats have to do double-duty now. Not only do they need to look rational and reasonable to sane voters, they also need to fend off their own radical communist base who views them already as impotent and cowardly. Something’s gotta give.
Lago, I can’t elaborate any further on what you’ve already said here. I think you’re the one who ran the table.
You’re a God!
lol
Blue – Don’t say that.
OR at least use a small ‘g’. 🙂
ok, let’s settle for ‘god-like’ and be done with it. lol.
Nice work, lago. I was surfing around and came across this column in RealClearPolitics. It turned out to be worthwhile.
Blue – Do not say that.